Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) [India], September 1 : The National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) has issued a fresh notice summoning Himachal Pradesh Additional Chief Secretary (Home & Vigilance) Rawther Dawood Nazeem and Director General of Police (DGP) Ashok Tiwari for personal appearance in New Delhi over allegations of caste-based discrimination, harassment, selective administrative action and victimisation levelled by Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Vijay Kumar.
The latest notice, issued on Tuesday, directs the senior officials to appear before NCSC Member Partha Biswas on September 10 at 11.30 am at the Commission's headquarters at Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi.
The officials have been directed to submit an Action Taken Report (ATR) in accordance with the directions and recommendations arising from the Commission's previous hearing on August 20. They have also been asked to produce all relevant records, including official files, case records and case diaries, during the hearing.
The communication was issued by Dinesh Vyas, Deputy Director, NCSC, and constitutes a fresh summons for personal appearance in the matter.
The proceedings stem from a representation submitted by DSP Vijay Kumar on June 3, 2026, in which he alleged deliberate caste-based atrocities, institutional harassment and discriminatory treatment by senior police authorities. The NCSC subsequently sought a report from the state police and initiated proceedings under its constitutional mandate under Article 338.
During the August 20 hearing, Kumar raised several allegations, including withdrawal of official facilities, assignment of strenuous duties despite medical restrictions, selective administrative action and proposed disciplinary proceedings. The Commission took note of the allegations and directed that no coercive or retaliatory action be taken against the officer, while seeking relevant records from the state authorities. The matter was thereafter listed for a further hearing on September 10.
The controversy has since widened with the reported non-disbursement of Kumar's salary for August 2026.
According to the officer's account, his August salary, which was due to be credited on September 1, was not credited to his account. He came to know about the non-payment when he went to an ATM on September 1 and found that the expected salary had not been credited.
The salary issue had already surfaced in official correspondence before the latest NCSC notice.
In a letter dated August 22, 2026, the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Shimla District, sought directions from the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Southern Range, Shimla, regarding the drawal of salary in respect of DSP Vijay Kumar.
The letter, bearing the subject "Regarding drawl of salary in r/o Dy. S.P Vijay Kumar", states that DSP Vikram Chauhan had joined the Shimla district against the post of DSP (Headquarters), Shimla, following his transfer.
It further states that Vijay Kumar, who had earlier been posted as DSP (Headquarters), Shimla, was under transfer orders to 2nd IRBn Sakoh, Dharamshala, but had not relinquished charge as he was on medical rest.
The SSP, Shimla, accordingly requested the DIG, Southern Range, to issue necessary directions regarding the drawal of Kumar's salary "at the earliest".
A copy of the letter was also marked to DSP Vijay Kumar for information.
The salary dispute has emerged against the backdrop of a larger disagreement concerning Kumar's transfer and subsequent administrative action.
The DSP has alleged that the action against him was selective, claiming that other officers similarly placed in the same transfer process were permitted to join their new postings without facing comparable proceedings. He has questioned why action was initiated against him when, according to his representation, other officers involved in the same transfer exercise were treated differently.
State police authorities, however, have maintained before the Commission that transfer orders and movement instructions are routine administrative procedures applicable uniformly to Himachal Pradesh Police Service officers and have denied that such actions were motivated by caste considerations.
Another major issue raised by Kumar concerns the withdrawal of his official vehicle.
The officer has questioned the circumstances in which the vehicle attached to him was withdrawn and alleged discriminatory treatment in comparison with other officers. He has also produced salary statements showing deductions of approximately Rs 750 per month towards the attached vehicle, according to documents cited in his representation.
Questions have consequently been raised by the officer regarding the basis of communications concerning the vehicle facility and whether responsibility was fixed for the circumstances surrounding its withdrawal.
The dispute also involves allegations of suspension and departmental proceedings. Kumar has alleged that he was subjected to disciplinary action after the transfer-related dispute, while similarly placed officers did not face comparable action.
The officer has sought an independent and time-bound inquiry into the conduct of senior police officials and has alleged institutional victimisation and caste-based discrimination.
The allegations have not been adjudicated by the NCSC, and the Commission's proceedings are currently at the hearing and inquiry stage.
The matter has also assumed wider social significance, with the Koli Samaj reportedly submitting a representation to the Himachal Pradesh government seeking action over the allegations concerning Kumar and raising questions regarding equality of treatment and protection of the service rights of a Scheduled Caste police officer.
The latest NCSC notice has now put the focus on the senior-most state Home and Police authorities, who have been asked to personally appear before the Commission along with the ATR and relevant official records.
The September 10 hearing is expected to examine the sequence of events surrounding Kumar's transfer, the alleged selective action against him, withdrawal of his official vehicle, disciplinary proceedings, the allegations of caste-based discrimination and the circumstances surrounding the reported non-disbursement of his August salary.
The Commission's notice itself does not make any finding that caste discrimination or administrative wrongdoing has occurred. The allegations made by the DSP remain subject to examination and response by the state authorities and the Commission.